Category: Bryan McGonigle
Bradley Named by Lobby Group as ‘Guardian’ of Small Business
Bradley
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 28
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 – The National Federation of Independent Business – a small business lobbying organization – has honored Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., with its Guardian of Small Business Award.
“I was a former small business owner myself for a number of years, and my parents owned a hardware store for many years,” Bradley said.
He and his wife Barbara ran a National Foods store, and he was a painting contractor and had real estate interests.
“So I know how important small business is,” he said. “It’s the backbone of New Hampshire’s economy.”
The federation, whose political action committee is funded by donations from its members in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, sets its public policy positions by regularly polling its members. House members were ranked on how often they voted to support the federation’s position in 14 key House votes during the 109th Congress. .
Bradley earned 86 percent with the group this year, and has a cumulative score of 89 percent during his time in Congress, according to the federation’s rankings.
“The record shows that Rep. Bradley is a true champion of small business, having stood strong on the key small-business votes in the 109th Congress,” federation president and CEO Todd Stottlemyer said. “This award reflects our members’ appreciation for supporting the NFIB pro-growth agenda for small business.”
Bradley lost points for disagreeing with the group about endangered species laws and toxic dumping. Bradley did not support a bill that would have loosened endangered species regulations, eliminated a habitat protection program and compensated small businesses negatively impacted by habitat laws. He also voted to stop an Environmental Protection Agency policy that loosens toxic dumping reporting guidelines.
“As big an advocate for small business as I am, I’ve also worked long and hard to protect the environment,” Bradley said. “Even though there should have been some reform to the endangered species law, I felt the bill went too far.”
Bradley said he’s focusing on health care for small businesses now. He said he’d like to see legislation passed that would lower small business health care costs by 15 percent and allow small businesses to pool together across state lines to get insurance at lower costs.
“It’s no accident that a lot of the 47 million Americans that don’t have any health insurance are working for small businesses,” Bradley said. “So anything we can do to lower health insurance costs for small businesses is going to help families.”
###
House Grants Green Light to Administration’s Wiretapping
Wiretapping
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 28
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 – The House approved a bill Thursday that would allow the president to authorize domestic wiretapping for long periods of time without a warrant.
The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act was passed with a 232 to 191 vote in favor. It passed along the party line, with just 13 Republicans opposing it and 17 Democrats in favor.
Supporters praised the bill as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism.
“You can’t say that you’re serious about taking on the terrorists if you stand up here every day and vote ‘no,” Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. “To always have reasons why you can’t vote ‘yes’ I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them.”
The Senate must pass its own version of the bill before the president can sign it into law.
The House bill would give the president new surveillance authority and would allow him to continue a controversial wiretapping program. Democrats argued that the bill gives the administration too much authority to conduct surveillance on innocent Americans.
“This bill unnecessarily expands the authority of the National Security Agency and permits warrentless surveillance of international communications of any American who communicates with someone outside the United States,” said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., member of the House Select Intelligence Committee who voted against the bill.
The new bill would:
-- Grant the administration authority to conduct surveillance of domestic calls by Americans and to enter their homes without search warrants after either and armed attack on the United States, a terrorist attack or an imminent threat. Opponents argue that the bill does not define any of these.
-- Allow the administration to conduct non-wiretap surveillance such as reviewing phone records and other stored communications.
-- Allow the attorney general to demand that communications providers, Internet companies, landlords and family members assist with investigations and provide personal records without court review.
-- Terminate pending legal challenges to the National Security Agency surveillance program and shield relevant officials from liability related to surveillance.
“This bill essentially eliminates any checks and balances by the legislative and judiciary on executive power, and takes surveillance outside the 30-year old legal structure of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Tierney said.
That law, passed in 1978, allows the president to authorize electronic surveillance without court approval to collect foreign intelligence but requires special FISA court approval before ordering such surveillance within the United States. Under the House’s bill, communications from U.S. citizens are no longer considered separate from those of foreign officials or spies.
“Our government must have strong powers, including the authorities to carry
out various forms of electronic surveillance,” Tierney said. “However, this bill gives the president carte blanche to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens without preserving the rights and liberties imbedded in our Constitution.”
Last December, in the wake of news reports, the president admitted that he had ordered a secret program in 2002 called the Terrorist Surveillance Program – authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents and foreign tourists without warrants to catch possible terrorist links.
The administration has defended the surveillance program, citing a joint resolution enacted by Congress authorizing the use of military force after the Sept. 11 attacks and “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those he determines helped with the attacks in order to prevent future attacks.
The administration has also said that it cannot permit congressional oversight of the program because of security concerns.
On Aug. 17, after the ACLU filed a challenge to the surveillance program, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that the program was unconstitutional and violated free speech and privacy. The Bush administration has appealed the ruling.
####
Bill Would Require Monitoring of Drug Benefit Gaps
MEDICARE
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 27
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 – Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., introduced legislation Wednesday aimed at monitoring benefit gaps in the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage.
The Honest Medicare Act would require the Department of Health and Human Services to provide a monthly report on the number of seniors who have fallen into what is known as a “doughnut hole.”
Under the Medicare Modernization Act that Congress passed in 2003, most drug insurance plans require that after total prescription drug costs have reached $2,250, a beneficiary must pay 100 percent of prescription costs for the next $2,850. During that gap in coverage—nicknamed the doughnut hole—seniors still must pay monthly premiums.
“The first step toward finding a realistic solution is to honestly define the problem,” Kennedy said in a statement after introducing the bill. “Our bill requires the [Bush] administration to level with the American people on how many seniors are losing coverage for the drugs they need to protect their health.”
Kennedy’s bill also would require the department to report how much money people are spending on prescriptions while in that hole.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a report last year detailing the extent of doughnut holes in the Medicare Part D plan, saying that “roughly one-third of Part D enrollees will have drug spending that exceeds the standard benefit's initial coverage range in any given year."
In Massachusetts, there are 44 health care plans from which to choose. Only one plan is full-coverage, and the rest have doughnut holes.
Last week, House Democrats from the Ways and Means Committee issued a report finding that 88 percent of beneficiaries nationwide who don’t receive extra help are enrolled in plans with substantial coverage gaps.
"Without a change in this misguided plan, the doughnut hole will be an annual problem that only gets worse,” Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said after the report was released. “In 10 years, the doughnut hole will have more than doubled, and drug costs will still be high because the government is prohibited from negotiating for lower prices.”
The report also said that premiums for plans with full coverage cost on average two and half times more than those with doughnut holes.
Residents in Massachusetts pay an average annual premium of $400 more for full-coverage than for a low-cost plan with a doughnut hole.
Janice Boyd is community educator for Elder Services of the Merrimack Valley in Massachusetts and a counselor with Serving Health Insurance Needs of Elders, or SHINE – an advocacy group that guides seniors through the health-care decision process. She said that while doughnut holes have been a big problem nationwide and can be a problem in the commonwealth, her organization has seen fewer instances of problems than expected because Massachusetts offers Prescription Advantage – a state-sponsored prescription plan.
Prescription Advantage allows its members who are on Medicare to buy a wide range of prescription drugs and helps pay Medicare Part D prescription costs, lowering the cost to patients and lessening both the likelihood and the effect of a doughnut hole.
“There are people that actually have both a Medicare D plan and Prescription Advantage because of their understanding of how the two work in conjunction with each other,” Boyd said.
Education has proven to be a big challenge to senior health care in Massachusetts, Boyd said, which is why groups like SHINE are helpful.
“We worked with thousands of individuals last fall, screening them to make sure they were able to find the Part D program that would fit their needs,” Boyd said, adding that many people in the commonwealth don’t take advantage of a variety of plans simply because they don’t know about them.
###
Vermont, New Hampshire Lawmakers Feud Over Wilderness Legisltation
MOUNTAINS
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 26
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 – Two bills aimed at protecting New Hampshire’s White Mountain National Forest were voted down Monday, with opposition led by a congressman from Vermont.
“We are extremely disappointed, and I think that the supporters of the wilderness designation are devastated by the turn of events,” said Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H. “This got caught up in a very partisan attempt to derail the New Hampshire legislation, which we have worked so long and hard on here in Washington and New Hampshire.”
In March, Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and John Sununu, R-N.H., introduced legislation to protect forests in New Hampshire by designating them as federal wildlife areas, which would prohibit a variety of activities, including road-building, timber harvesting. Subsequently some Vermont forests were added to the bill.
Around that time, Bradley and Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., each introduced similar legislation. Bass’ bill would have created a wilderness area of about 23,700 acres in the Wild River Valley, and Bradley’s would have expanded existing wilderness in the Sandwich Range by 10,800 acres.
Last week the Senate passed its bill unanimously, calling it the New England Wilderness Act.
House leaders attempted to pass its two bills with an expedited procedure that does not allow for amendments, making it easier to pass through with so little time left in this session of Congress, but requires a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority.
Of 390 votes cast, Bass’s bill got 223 votes and Bradley’s got 220. Neither achieved the 260 votes required to meet the two-thirds standard.
Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., spearheaded opposition to the two House bills, sending a letter to fellow House members Monday urging them to vote no. He said that rather than protect wilderness, the bills would ensure that no wilderness bills would be passed this year because of differences between the House and Senate versions.
“There is simply not enough time left in the session to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills,” Sanders wrote.
Bradley disputed Sanders. “Congressman Sanders can say whatever he wants,” he said. “He’s entitled to his opinion. He’s not entitled to the facts though.”
Sanders, who is running for Senate, blamed the Republican leadership in the House for what he called abuse of power and said he wanted to send a message to Republicans to schedule a vote on the Senate’s bill, which would include Vermont.
“As it stands now, only one bill has passed and that is the bipartisan New England Wilderness Act,” Erin Campbell, Sanders’ communications director, said. “This puts us in the strongest position to attempt to move this legislation forward.”
Campbell said that partisan Republican motivation led to Vermont being left out of Bradley’s and Bass’ bills.
However Bradley accused Democrats of partisanship, saying that when he asked several House Democrats for help passing the bills they refused because they’d already been approached by Sanders.
Campbell said that only legislation including Vermont would get the same bipartisan support as the Senate bill.
“Our bill was being held hostage to a similar effort in Vermont to designate wilderness that did not have the consensus that the New Hampshire legislation had,” Bradley said.
In 2003, Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, expressed his opposition to the creation of more federal wilderness areas in the state, as did the Vermont House of Representatives by a vote of 86 to 56 in 2004 and eight towns in the past four years. That, Bradley said, was why he was opposed to having Vermont included on legislation.
“Mr. Sanders felt that despite all the opposition in Vermont, he was somehow entitled to get his own way,” Bradley said. “The Vermont people need to try to come to a consensus that is not opposed by eight towns, by the governor and by the state House. That’s the issue in Vermont. What I’m focused on is New Hampshire.”
In New Hampshire, Bradley said, many groups – logging companies, environmental groups and local governments – had reached consensus. In a 15-year plan proposed by the U.S. Forest Service, certain areas of the White Mountain National Forest would be protected as wilderness while other parts would be set aside for timber.
“It was a balanced plan, which is why there was so much support for it in New Hampshire,” Bradley said. “Nobody was 100 percent happy, but everybody realized that the plan was a comprehensive approach to the White Mountain National Forest that allowed what we need to happen: continuation of logging jobs, continuation of recreation and continuation of environmental protection.”
Susan Arnold, director of conservation for the Appalachian Mountain Club, said she was excited that the Senate passed its bill and that she was optimistic that a comprehensive New England bill will pass through Congress.
“The bill represents years of work among local residents, the U.S. Forest Service and the congressional delegation of both New Hampshire and Vermont,” Arnold said. “We are grateful to both delegations and their staff for their work in moving this important legislation forward. We're optimistic that they can get a full New England Wilderness Act passed before Congress goes home at the end of the year.”
VA Halts Proposal to Close New Hampshire Emergency Facility at Night
VAHOSPITALS
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington Newsroom
Sept. 21
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 – The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs will keep the VA Medical Center in Manchester, N.H., open 24 hours a day as Congress considers legislation to restrict the department’s ability to cut emergency room hours.
Last fall, the department proposed curtailing Manchester’s emergency room hours, closing the facility from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and possibly on weekends. The proposal was not limited to Manchester and could have eventually affected VA hospitals nationwide.
Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., introduced legislation in May that would require that Congress be informed of any such proposal. The department would then have to wait 180 days before implementing the cuts in hours. Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., co-sponsored the bill, which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
Bradley also wrote three letters to VA Secretary James Nicholson urging him to reconsider the proposal.
“What we asked is why are you potentially closing emergency rooms when you clearly have responsibility to the patients and not allowing these patients, if you’re potentially going to close an emergency center, to go to another facility?” Bradley said.
The department agreed to halt its proposal on cutting emergency room hours Tuesday while the legislation goes through Congress.
Jim Thompson, spokesman for the Manchester facility, said the issue had to do with patient transfers: About 20,000 veterans from southern New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts use the Manchester VA Medical Center, and the facility does not have in-patient services. Patients who get emergency care there and need in-patient care must be transferred. The hours specifically chosen for closing were based on availability of staff.
“We have an agreement with Catholic Medical Center here in Manchester to provide hospital care whenever it’s needed,” Thompson said. “It’s easier to transfer in the daytime. There’s more staff here during the day.”
But non-departmental hospitals often pose financial complications for veterans, Bradley said. Patients are not always reimbursed for what they pay outside the department’s system and are stuck paying out of pocket.
A patient in Salem, N.H., or Derry, N.H., who has a heart attack in the middle of the night should go to Parkland Medical Center in Derry, Bradley said. But with reimbursement policy so unclear, many will drive the extra miles to go to Manchester VA Medical Center – endangering their lives during the first crucial moments of the emergency, he said.
“The VA has a very complex formula for reimbursing vets for emergency care outside the VA,” Thompson said. “Of course there are definitely vets that would go out of the way to come to the VA emergency room when they really should be going to the closest emergency room.”
Paul Chevalier, past state commander of the New Hampshire Veterans of Foreign Wars, said it is not as simple as going to another hospital, since patients must be referred by a VA hospital before going to a non-VA hospital.
“If you go to the VA emergency room, even though they probably can’t take care of you there [with in-patient care], they refer you to the local hospital,” Chevalier said. “If the emergency room is closed and you show up at Catholic Medical Center, you’re on your own” in paying the bill.
Bradley said he wants to see the VA’s policies clarified.
“Congress is probably going to have to authorize reimbursements to make sure it’s crystal clear to other facilities,” he said. “That’s so that people in Laconia, when they’re faced with that emergency in the middle of the night, they go right to Lakes Region General, as opposed to driving to Manchester, where they know they’re not going to be on the hook for the bills.”
The bill before Congress would require that if an emergency center’s hours are reduced, the VA secretary must take steps to ensure that an alternative facility is available to veterans without financial burden to them.
“I’m hoping that in the waning days of this session, or certainly in the next session of Congress, my legislation will go forward,” Bradley said. “The whole point is to get our veterans a health care system that works for them.”
###
Analogic Gets Grant Aid Screening of Airport Luggage
ANALOGIC
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 20, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 – The Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday that it will give $199,000 to Analogic Corp. in Peabody, Mass., to develop technology that would allow airport security personnel to look through luggage as if watching a three-dimensional movie.
Analogic is a leading technology provider to the department’s Transportation Security Administration and also develops medical screening equipment. The company’s explosive assessment computed tomography – similar to a CT scan someone would get in a hospital – is used to examine checked luggage in airports across the United States and around the world.
Approximately 650 explosive detection systems from Analogic have been installed in airports worldwide.
The grant will be used in research and engineering for three-dimensional display. Current technology allows for three-dimensional scanning of checked baggage, but images appear on two-dimensional display screens.
“It’s like the difference between a map and a globe of the Earth,” Analogic president and CEO John W. Wood Jr. said. “It’s like those movies where people would have to wear goggles. We want to expand on that.”
The research also will focus on improving screening of carry-on luggage.
Analogic applied for the grant earlier this year, and Wood said that in the early stages of research, $200,000 is typically the amount of money requested.
In June, Wood testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation and outlined Analogic’s technological projects in recent years and asked for continuing support from the Department of Homeland Security.
Wood said that his testimony and the grant are unrelated. The giving of the grant probably had more to do with the terrorist plot to detonate bombs on several airplanes this summer, Wood said. British and Pakistani intelligence officials said on Aug. 9 that they thwarted final stages of a plan by terrorists to simultaneously blow up almost a dozen airplanes over the Atlantic Ocean.
Airport security tightened in the United States immediately after the plot was discovered, and passengers saw increased waiting times and longer lines at airport gates. Wood said he hopes Analogic’s new technology will not only make air travel safer but also speed the flow of traffic through airports.
Members of Congress praised the grant as a stepped-up effort to confront terrorism and protect airplane passengers.
“Providing baggage screeners with better means to keep airports and planes safe is critically important, and it’s gratifying that companies in Massachusetts are taking the lead,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement Wednesday following the announcement. “Scientists at Analogic deserve all the support we can give them, and I commend DHS for supporting their indispensable work.”
Analogic boasts of taking the lead in its industry, thanks largely to contracts and grants from the government. The company has received five development contracts from the Transportation Security Administration in recent years to develop new checked baggage and checkpoint security systems.
Last year, the Department of Homeland Security awarded a contract to Analogic to develop its carry-on baggage real-time assessment checkpoint security system – which provides automatic detection and three-dimensional screening of all the objects in a bag or parcel.
In 2002, Analogic built a 200,000 square-foot computed tomography manufacturing facility in Haverhill, Mass., and dramatically increased production of its explosive assessment computed tomography system to help meet the range of security detection needs of the government, according to the company’s Web site.
There is no timeline set for engineering and development of Analogic’s three-dimensional display technology, Wood said.
“It’s difficult to say when and if this [latest grant] will result in complete products,” Wood said. If successful, he added, the three-dimensional displays may be able to be used with the company’s existing products.
Founded in 1967, Analogic has more than 400 engineers, mathematicians and technicians on staff, according to the company’s Web site. Analogic is a member of the International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative, an industry-led consortium dedicated to developing and deploying new manufacturing technologies.
###
Bush to U.N.: “People Are Making the Choice for Freedom”
UNSPEECH
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 20
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 – President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, highlighting progress and goals he says are crucial to gaining stability in the Middle East and winning the struggle against global terrorism.
Frequently referring to his speech to the assembly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush argued that progress has been made – albeit not easily.
“Some of the changes in the Middle East have been dramatic, and we see the results in this chamber,” Bush told the 192-member assembly, referring to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. “With these changes, more than 50 million people have been given a voice in this chamber for the first time in decades.”
Bush responded to assertions that his administration’s policy in the Middle East has caused instability rather than corrected it.
“The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage,” Bush said. “For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.”
Bush repeatedly differentiated between Muslim moderates and Muslim extremists, emphasizing that the United States is not at war with Islam as a whole but with terrorist factions within the Islamic community.
“From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom,” Bush said. “And the nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice, as well. Will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change across the Middle East, or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists?”
Bush waited until near the end of his speech to address the global community’s relationship with Iran. Speaking to Iranians directly, he stressed that the United States respects Iran and its rich culture and history but maintained his tough stance against that country’s rulers.
“You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential,” he said. “The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons.”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his speech to the U.N. several hours later. The speech lacked his usual high level of controversy and anti-Western flair. He only discussed the United States vaguely when he mentioned a blanket support for Israel and what he called a regime installed by a coup – a reference to the United States’ support of the secular rule of former Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, deposed during Iran’s 1979 revolution.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran is born out of a movement, based on the pure primordial nature of a people who rose up to regain their dignity, esteem and human rights,” Ahmadinejad said. “The Islamic Revolution toppled a regime which had been put in place through a coup and supported by those who claim to be advocates of democracy and human rights. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the manifestation of true democracy in the region.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that the United States would push for sanctions against Iran, which failed to halt its uranium enrichment by the Aug. 21 deadline set by the United Nations.
In his speech Tuesday, Ahmadinejad again denied that his country is enriching uranium for weapons, saying Iran’s nuclear program was transparent and under close scrutiny of U.N. inspectors.
Representatives from the United States and Israel were absent during Ahmadinejad’s speech.
Congressional reactions to Bush’s speech were mixed.
“We are tragically in need of leadership from the president on the tensions in the Middle East, but instead, the president's speech to the U.N. today was full of the same old empty rhetoric,” Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said. “While the President spoke of peace in Lebanon, between Israel and Palestine and with the people of Iran, he continually fails to realize the true impact of the war in Iraq on the Middle East and the prospects for peace in the region. President Bush's unilateral actions have undermined our legitimacy in the region as an honest broker of peace and hindered our efforts to counter extremism.”
In an interview with MSNBC immediately following Bush’s address, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., scoffed at the president’s contention that his administration is creating stability in the Middle East.
“Of course we should stand with democracies,” Kerry said. “Democracy will not emerge out of a gun barrel.”
Kerry then repeated his previous calls for 5,000 more troops in Afghanistan, saying the president has “cut and run” from that country.
Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said Wednesday that he agrees with Bush about Iran and sees the need to halts that country’s uranium enrichment.
“A nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to the region but to our national security, and we need to continue the diplomatic process to make sure this government does not possess nuclear weapons,” Bradley said.
###
Polls Favor Democrats Taking House; Meehan, Tierney Get Ready
DemsHouse
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 14, 2006
WASHINGTON – The 110th Congress may be a shade of blue – politically, that is.
Democrats, who lost control of the House after the1994 elections, have a strong chance of getting it back in November, according to many polls, pundits and political analysts.
Of the 435 House seats – 232 of which are held by Republicans – Democrats need to pick up 15 to gain control. Several months ago, most leading political analysts dismissed the idea of a majority change. But with about 65 of the races showing some degree of competition, the skeptics are changing their tunes.
“We’re just going have to work hard,” Rep. John F. Tierney, D-Mass., said of the Democratic Party. “We have good candidates out in the field. It’s fertile ground.”
In a recent Gallup poll asking people if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of each party, 54 percent said they looked favorably on the Democratic Party – its highest rating in two years - and 40 percent said they looked unfavorably on the party. The Republican Party was viewed favorably by 53 percent and unfavorably.
The gap between the parties is much wider. When people were asked which party’s candidate they would vote for in their congressional district if the election were held today, 53 percent said Democratic and 41 percent said Republican.
“It’s too bad the elections aren’t being held today,” Tierney said with a laugh.
Many Democrats are running on anti-Bush and anti-Republican fuel, ignited by the public’s diminished support of President Bush,, by increasing distrust of Congress and by growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq.
“It’s clear to me that people in America feel the country is going in the wrong direction,” Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said, adding that Democrats want to see more troops in Afghanistan to fight the war on terror. “Most Americans feel that war is going in the wrong direction.”
Bush’s job approval rating remains well under 50 percent, and approval of Congress is below 30 percent – making this an anti-incumbent and anti-Republican election, according to the Gallup editor’s forecast.
“There’s an incredible dissatisfaction right now on the direction of this country, and it’s not just Iraq,” Tierney said. “It goes across to Katrina. It goes across to the economy.”
Democrats have long had a reputation for taxing and spending, and Republicans have run successful campaigns making that point. If Democrats take the House, Meehan wants to see the House focus on cutting spending but isn’t ruling out tax increases for some people.
“Reining in spending will be a part of it,” Meehan said. “I think that if more revenue is needed to balance the budget, the Bush tax cuts for the highest one percent could have their tax cuts rolled back, but that doesn’t affect 99 percent of Americans.”
Meehan would like to see a check and balance on the Bush administration if the Democrats get control of the House.
“This Congress has been a rubber stamp for anything the administration wants to do,” Meehan said. “Spending has gone unchecked. Auditing of the books is in order.”
The possible change of power may seem familiar to many people. In the 1994 mid-term elections, Republican candidates won sweeping victories and took over the House with campaigns focused on reducing government spending, improving the military and balancing the budget. Many also ran on the common goal of taking on Democratic President Clinton.
Bets in favor of a Democratic takeover could lead to a lot of missteps on the Democrats’ part, Meehan warned.
“I’m concerned there are some Democrats who are too overconfident,” he said. “Republicans have demonstrated that they will say or do anything to try to divert attention from their record.”
Tierney agrees that Republicans will probably use effective attack methods, but said he’s optimistic about his party’s members and their strategy and sees no evidence of overconfidence among Democrats.
“We’re taking nothing for granted,” he said. “If these were parliamentary elections, you could be as confident as you want to be.”
The goal will be to get the Democratic message into each district with a Republican congressman, Tierney said, and convince the voters that keeping their congressman will only perpetuate the policies of an already unpopular Congress.
Tierney said the Democrats will focus on issues that mainstream Americans – Republicans and Democrats alike – care about: restoring veterans’ benefits, going after oil companies for what he called price gouging and tax giveaways, cutting student loan interest rates in half, expanding Pell grants for college students and revising Medicare’s prescription drug benefits.
“If they win by a narrow margin, it makes it tough to govern,” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said. “Whether they’re able to keep the House for more than two years depends on how far they overreach.”
If people think the Democrats are just out for revenge, he added, they will likely vote the party out just as quickly as they voted them in.
“Second, it depends on whether having a Democratic majority forces both sides to talk to each other,” Ornstein said. “That’s tricky, but there’s a better chance of that if one party isn’t in charge of everything.”
No matter what polls say today, both congressmen agree that until Nov. 7, it’s still anyone’s game to win or lose.
“The Democrats are always the underdog until it’s actually done,” Tierney said.
####
Nation, Bay State Don’t Make the Grade on Affordability
Education
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 13
WASHINGTON -- College costs have reached unacceptable levels both nationwide and in Massachusetts, according to a recent report from an education advocacy group.
According to the report by the non-partisan, non-profit National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Massachusetts aced categories such as preparation, participation and completion, but got an “F” in affordability.
The commonwealth is not alone: 42 other states, including New Hampshire, got a failing grade in that category. California and Utah shared the highest affordability grade – a “C-”.
“There will be 2.4 million qualified students [nationwide] over this next decade that could gain entrance to our universities and colleges who will not go on to school or colleges because of the cost of education,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a telephone press conference Wednesday.
The federal level
Touching on a hot topic for the November congressional elections, Kennedy chastised the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans for what he says are poor educational policies regarding higher education funding.
“This administration has turned its back on middle-income students and neediest students who have academic qualifications and academic achievements,” Kennedy said.
White House spokesman Peter Watkins replied that the Bush administration has made education a top priority from the beginning, citing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which tied elementary and secondary school funding to educational achievement levels.
“One of the top priorities of the president is to improve the access and accountability in higher education,” Wilkins said.
President Bush also has proposed increased loan forgiveness, from $5,000 to $17,500, for highly qualified math, science and special-education teachers serving low-income communities.
Pell Grant funding has increased 47 percent while Bush has been in office, according to the White House press office, but in its fiscal 2007 budget, the administration called for holding spending for most financial aid and other college programs at their 2006 levels and holding the maximum Pell grant at slightly over $4,000 for the fifth year in a row.
“This last year, in the United States Senate we were able to work out a $12 billion student assistance scholarship program for expansion of the Pell grant program and other assistance on the loan programs that was accepted unanimously, Republicans and Democrats alike,” Kennedy said. “It went to the Congress, and at the urging of the administration, they took the $12 billion… and put it over for tax reductions for the wealthiest individuals.”
The commonwealth
The problem isn’t strictly a federal one. Massachusetts’ other high scores show that those who can attend college are doing so and are getting quality education. But costs have skyrocketed in the Bay State, and state funding has not increased at a comparable rate.
A report by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that lifetime income increases in proportion to the level of education.
“Everybody should have access to education,” said Ernie Greenslade, director of public relations for Northern Essex Community College in Massachusetts’ Merrimack Valley. “Higher Education shouldn’t be something for just those who are financially secure.”
In Massachusetts, according to the center’s report card:
--Since 1992, the average share of family income statewide devoted to college tuition has risen from 28 percent to 34 percent for public four-year colleges and from 72 percent to 83 percent for private four-year colleges.
--A family with an average annual income of $58,050 spends $13,432 – 23 percent of that income – on college tuition for a public four-year institution; and $29, 008 – 50 percent of their income – for a private four-year school.
--The 40 percent of the population with the lowest income -- those who try to reach or stay in middle-class status – spend an average of 52 percent of family income on public four-year colleges and 128 percent of income on private four-year colleges.
--At the same time, state investment in need-based financial aid has improved from 38 percent to 51 percent since 1992, and the share of family income spent on the lowest-priced colleges has decreased.
“We’re an expensive state, and we are finding out that the state itself has failed in recent years to give the kind of support and assistance that I think people need,” Kennedy said. “How can we expect the federal government to be putting on federal funds if the state hasn’t shown its commitment?”
State investment in need-based financial aid has actually risen since 1992, according to the study, and the share of income that the poorest families need to pay for tuition has dropped. The ones who suffer most are those families not poor enough to qualify for much financial aid but not wealthy enough to pay for college or avoid costly student loans.
“We have a student loan program that works well for the banks but not for the students,” Kennedy said. “We need to bring competition into this student loan program just like we bring competition into other aspects of federal funding.”
The cost of attending Salem State College is about $16,000 per year, including tuition, room and board and fees. At UMass Lowell, that cost is almost $14,500.
And the community
Community colleges, the report shows, are more affordable. In Massachusetts, a family with an annual income of $58,050 spends only 16 percent of that income on community college tuition. The percentage of average family income statewide spent on community college tuition rose only one percent – 24 percent to 25 percent – from 1992 to 2006.
Another benefit to community colleges is the incentive the state gives students to move up to four-year institutions. In Massachusetts, if students earn a “B” or higher at a community college, the state will pay a large percentage of their tuition at a four-year public college or university.
Every year, more than 15,000 students study at Northern Essex Community College. The college offers associate degrees, continuing education and developmental courses. Tuition is $105 per credit for Massachusetts residents – a little over $3,000 for full-time enrollment - and half the full-time students receive financial aid.
“This year, enrollment was looking up about one percent, and we have seen enrollment increased in the last couple of years,” Greenslade said.
In the fall of 1998, enrollment of full-time students was at 3,059. In the fall of 2005, it was at 3,707 – a 21 percent increase.
In Massachusetts, students can enroll in the Joint Admissions Program. A student who goes to a community college for two years and gets a degree can transfer immediately to a four-year state school at the junior level. And a student accepted into the honors program at Northern Essex Community College is automatically accepted into UMass Amherst’s honor program if the student enrolls at that school.
Greenslade is cautious about reports like the center’s, fearing that they cause people to lose hope and overlook affordable options.
“The reality is that affordability is an issue and has to be very important. But the community colleges are still very affordable,” she said.
###
$9.2 Million Released to Help Heat Low-Income Homes
LIHEAP
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
9/12/06
WASHINGTON-- Low-income families in Massachusetts and New Hampshire can expect a little more help in keeping warm next winter from the Bush Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The department released almost $9.2 million in contingency funds to Massachusetts Tuesday for energy assistance from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and almost $3 million to New Hampshire Monday from the program’s surplus funds.
“With this funding, the Bush Administration is helping those in need by ensuring their homes are kept warm during the winter months,” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said.
Almost five million low-income households across the country receive the energy assistance each year. The department released $600 million in assistance last winter to meet record-high fuel costs. The contingency aid to Massachusetts is part of more than $79 million provided to 14 states this week.
“As the cold weather arrives and temperatures begin to fall, these funds are essential to enable low-income families to heat their homes,” U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement Tuesday. Kennedy is the senior minority member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “No family should have to face the impossible choice of staying warm or paying their bills for food, rent or health care.”
U.S. Reps. Charles Bass, R-N.H., and Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., had written to President Bush urging him to release the program’s surplus funds to New Hampshire before they expire on Sept. 30, the final day of the fiscal year. That money will be available later this week.
“With the price of gasoline and home heating oil as high as it is,” Bradley said, “to have $3 million for the state over and above [what had previously been allocated] for next year is really good news.”
The $2.98 million from the surplus funds will bring New Hampshire’s total to almost $28 million and will assist an additional 4,500 families, Bradley said.
Last October, the U.S. Senate rejected two proposals to increase funds for the program. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch spoke out strongly against the rejection, saying that the state’s most vulnerable citizens would suffer as heating oil prices rose.
“It’s good that some funding is coming through,” Pamela Walsh, Lynch’s communications director, said Tuesday. “I think we’re going to need to see continued support for LIHEAP. We are a cold state, and oil prices continue to be extraordinarily high.”
New Hampshire’s Office of Energy and Planning contracts with six local community action agencies to provide the federal funds to eligible households – those with gross annual incomes under 60 percent of the state median. A household of four people is eligible if its gross annual income is under $35,798.
“We do not know what our final base grant funding is going to be,” said Celeste Lovett, fuel assistance program manager for the New Hampshire agency, “but starting off this year knowing that we have nearly $3 million in contingency funds is a big help.”
The money will be released to eligible New Hampshire households after Dec. 1, but the program has been taking applications since July. Lovett is encouraging everyone having trouble paying heating bills to contact their local community action agency now.
In Massachusetts, the program operates from Nov. 30 to April 30. The money is allocated to the Department of Housing and Community Development and is disbursed to eligible households through various non-profit agencies. Families are eligible if their gross annual income is no more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and the amount of assistance rises as that percentage falls. A family of four is eligible if the total gross income is less than $38,700.
“The need is great,” said Charles L. Lopiano, assistant director of the Greater Lawrence Community Action Council in Lawrence. There are about 7,200 families – 14,000 people – in Greater Lawrence who need the energy assistance, he said. “There was about $4.5 million in LIHEAP funds to the Greater Lawrence Community Action Council this year, and we’ve gone through it already.”
Bradley said he hopes this week’s boost in energy assistance grants is the start of a trend to address New England’s heating problems head-on and discard political bickering.
“LIHEAP funding is going to be a priority for all of us in the Northeast on a bipartisan basis,” he said. “We are working to increase LIHEAP funding as we did last year, and we will do so next year as we did this year.”
###
